Then, our panel on same-sex marriage in the 2014 elections, immigration and a battle royale deep in the heart of Texas.

I'm Candy Crowley, and this is STATE OF THE UNION.

(END VIDEOTAPE) CROWLEY (on-camera): First this morning, an intersection of history on Robben Island, the first U.S. African-American president tours the prison that once held Nelson Mandela for 18 of his 27 years in jail.

Joining us, Nkepile Mabuse, she is outside of the Pretoria hospital where South Africa's first Black president, now 94 years old, fights for his life. Nkepile, first, an update on Nelson Mandela's health and then just some thoughts of yours on the history of this moment with the U.S. president in country as the former South African president fights for his life.

NKEPILE MABUSE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: You know, Candy, former president, Nelson Mandela, is still critically ill in this hospital behind me. He has been here for a little over three weeks now. And in that time, Candy, we've seen South Africans go through what I've described as an emotional roller coaster ride.

At one point, they were led to believe that Mr. Mandela may be getting better, and then the president of the country canceled a foreign trip last week, a sign of some sort to signify that maybe the end is near for Nelson Mandela. And so, you see South Africans carrying this anxiety and bringing it to the hospital in the form of flowers and tribute. I don't know if you can hear behind me people singing.

We've seen this throughout the three weeks. And of course, many people saying that Mr. Mandela's ailing health has been sort of like a somber backdrop to President Barack Obama's trip through Africa. Every single opportunity that President Obama has received, he has expressed his gratitude to Mr. Mandela's leadership.

You know that he has always said that the anti-apartheid struggle here in South Africa and Mr. Mandela specifically sparked his initial political awakening. And of course, that theme continued today on Saturday with Mr. Obama visiting Robben Island where former president, Nelson Mandela, was imprisoned. Mr. Obama has been to Robben Island before, I must stress, Candy, but he said it was a privilege and an honor to take Sasha and Malia there.

He says that he's hoping to teach them about the anti-apartheid struggle, about Nelson Mandela even deeper. And then, he's hoping that his girls will carry these lessons back home in their everyday lives in America -- Candy.

CROWLEY: Nkepile Mabuse, thank you so much for joining us this morning out of Pretoria. We appreciate it.

Now to Egypt where massive protests against the country's first democratically elected president are under way. We want to go to CNN's Ben Wedeman in Cairo's Tahrir Square. Ben, we have passed this way before.

BEN WEDEMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, we certainly have, but I think this time, Candy, is different. What you have behind me is tens of thousands of people in Tahrir Square, all of them calling for President Mohamed Morsi to go. And what's interesting is, the planned marches in Cairo haven't even begun. In other words, there are many tens of thousands more headed this way to join the protesters here.

Now, this is the fruit of a movement that began three months ago that's managed to collect, according to the movement, more than 22 million signatures calling on Mohamed Morsi to step down. And it's not just the young revolutionaries anymore. It's also many Egyptians, ordinary Egyptians, who are disappointed with one rule -- one year of rule by the Muslim Brotherhood. Talk to anybody in Cairo, they'll tell you about waiting hours and hours for gas at the gas stations, of prolonged electricity cuts, and it's very hot here in Cairo at the moment, of a faltering economy, of a lack of law and order in the streets. So, it's revolutionaries, ordinary Egyptians and also some people who see this as an opportunity to get the army to retake power from the Muslim Brotherhood.

At the same time, Candy, we shouldn't ignore the many other millions of Egyptians who voted for Mohamed Morsi a year ago, who feel that he has a Democratic mandate to rule the country, that he's been grappling with difficult problems and should be given the opportunity to fill out his term. So, we have this demonstration behind me, another one growing outside the presidential palace.

That also anti-Morsi. But in another part of Cairo, a very large demonstration of his supporters. The worry, of course, is these demonstrations will meet somewhere, and when they meet, it could be bloody. Candy?

CROWLEY: Ben Wedeman, I know we'll be back to you throughout the day. Thank you.

When we return, gay rights advocates win two big victories at the Supreme Court. The man who led the fight and one of them says he's not done yet. David Boies is next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BOIES: Our goal is to have marriage equality throughout the country. I think that's an achievable goal.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CROWLEY: That was Attorney David Boies following the Supreme Court decision which cleared the way for same-sex marriages in California to resume. Joining me now is the man who argued and one of the men who argued and won that case against Proposition 8 in California.

David Boies, thanks for being here. Let me ask you right off the bat, how do you go about -- this is a large goal you just seemed to be -- you've set for yourself, which is sort of a state-by-state adventure to bring legality to same-sex marriage. Where do you even start? BOIES: Well, I think you start in a number of places. First, remember that the United States Supreme Court found that the plaintiffs in this particular case had standing to attack Proposition 8, but the people who are supporting Proposition 8 did not have standing to appeal our victory in the trial court.

So, that reinstates the trial court's decision that says that all bans on gay and lesbian marriage violate equal protection and due process clauses of the 14th Amendment. CROWLEY: Not just in California, you're saying.

BOIES: That ruling implied -- not just in California. That is a ruling that says under the constitution, not just in California, but under the constitution, which of course, is the national constitution, and the 14th Amendment applies to all 50 states that the due process --

CROWLEY: But you know, David, a lot of people thought this was more about states' rights, that this wasn't, that this was the court not wanting to get into it but allowing the states to decide for themselves. You disagree with that?

BOIES: Well, of course, because if they were going to allow the states to decide for themselves, they would have allowed California to decide for itself. California decided. California passed Proposition 8.

CROWLEY: Right.

BOIES: So, what the court was doing was it was invalidating California's choice, and that's exactly what the courts are supposed to do under the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment was passed for the specific reason of saying states have rights, but one of those rights is not to discriminate against its own citizens.

And so, the courts have always enforced that nationally, not just state by state. So, one of the things that's going to happen is that the principles that are in the district court decision in Perry and in the United States Supreme Court decision in the DOMA case are now going to be applied nationally.

While those cases are going on, efforts will be made to see if states will not adopt marriage equality, like New York did and like many other states have already done, either by initiative themselves or by legislation. So, what you're going to see is you're going to see an effort to convince states to abide now by the constitution without judicial action.

CROWLEY: So, your argument is that the Supreme Court's decision on Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage -- so, the Supreme Court's decision to let a lower court decision stand which said, wait, you can't ban gay marriage. You are going to argue in these other states, look, it's just done, that basically, that decision means nationwide, the Supreme Court agrees that same-sex marriage certainly is protected under the constitution. So, you're going at this from a legal point of view to the state legislators? Are you forming a group? I'm trying to get an idea of what the process is going to be.

BOIES: Well, I'm a lawyer, and I represent clients. One of the clients I represent is the American Foundation for Equal Rights. And I think one of the things that the board of that organization and the board of the human rights campaign is doing right now is looking at the issues as to how is it best to move this issue forward, legislatively, by initiative and by court action.

And I think you'll see a combination of those over the next few years. It's terribly important that we extend the promise of equality that the Supreme Court and that the district court articulated in the DOMA case and in the Perry case to all Americans in all 50 states.

CROWLEY: So, when you're looking at the map, and I just want to put this up for our viewers, 13 states and the District of Columbia have passed laws to legalize, if you will, same-sex marriage. That's 37 states for you to kind of look at. Are there some states that you look at where same-sex marriage may be, be that they have civil unions or that they have no laws at all that you think we can easily pick up this state or that? Is there a state, you know, in your target zone?

BOIES: Well, I think there are lots of states. I don't want to get in today with what are the states that we're going to target first or anything like that because there isn't any state that we're giving up on. There isn't any state we're taking for granted, but there isn't any state we're giving up on, either. Our goal is to have marriage equality that's guaranteed by the United States constitution enforced in every single state in the union.

CROWLEY: And as a final question about this Supreme Court decision, I wonder, as a lawyer or as a voter, you look at Proposition 8, which in California bans same-sex marriage. It was a vote of the people in California. Do you have a problem with what some people see as overturning the will of the people, the court saying, I don't care what you people voted, here's what we think?

BOIES: Well, remember, remember first that the whole purpose of the constitution is to say there are certain rights that are fundamental that can't be taken away by a vote of the people, not by 52 percent as in Proposition 8, not by 75 percent, not by 95 percent. There are certain rules, there are certain fundamental rights that are so important to our society that the constitution guarantees them.

If you hadn't overruled the will of the people in brown against board of education, you'd still have segregated schools.

CROWLEY: Right.

BOIES: If you hadn't overruled the will of the people in Virginia in loving against Virginia in 1967, when the Supreme Court overturned a ban on interracial marriage, you'd still have bans on people marrying just because they were of different races. When you have violations of fundamental rights, the whole purpose of a constitution and the whole purpose of our judicial system is to be sure that those are enforced regardless of what a temporary majority may or may not say.

Second thing that's important to keep in mind is a lot of the people right now that are out there saying, well, you've got to respect the Democratic process, the day before in the voting Rights Act wanted to overturn the Democratic process, because remember, the Voting Rights Act was passed by huge majorities in both Houses of Congress. CROWLEY: Right.

BOIES: Republicans and Democrats alike, signed by the president, and yet, many of the people who now oppose marriage equality were the people who most strongly advocated vacating that law, invalidating that law by the United States Supreme Court.

CROWLEY: David Boies, thank you so much for your time this morning.

BOIES: Thank you.

CROWLEY: When we return, opponents of same-sex marriage say the fight's not over.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN EASTMAN, CHAIRMAN, NATL. ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE: When you destroy or redefine the institution, all of society is going to be harmed.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CROWLEY: The head of the National Organization for Marriage, John Eastman, is next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CROWLEY: Joining me now is John Eastman. He is chairman of the National Organization for Marriage, a group that opposes same-sex marriage. Mr. Eastman, thank you so much for being here. I want to begin with the piece of sound that we used going into the break where you said to destroy or redefine an institution means that all of society is going to be harmed.

Can you look at the 13 states and the District of Columbia who have approved same-sex marriage, who have carried out same-sex marriage and tell me where the harm has been?

EASTMAN: Sure. You know, this is part of the evidence in the trial direct of David Boies' case. And, they relied on evidence from Massachusetts that said we haven't had any harm in the couple of years since we've performing marriages. I think that's the wrong question.

The harm that is going to happen here is the weakening of the bonds of the institution designed around the unique procreative abilities of men and women, and that's not going to be something that happens overnight. It's going to take root over time, just as the harm that's flowed from loosening the divorce laws and going to no- fault divorce and kind of just utter weakening of the cultural institution behind marriage and the cultural support of that.

We've now got the highest out-of-wedlock birth rate in the country and we know for a fact that children do worse in such situations than they do in an intact family raised by their mom and dad. So, this --

CROWLEY: I hear you, but --

EASTMAN: -- point to after a couple of years.

CROWLEY: Sure. I just wanted to ask. I mean, I understand where you're going with this, but there are lots of children who are being raised in single-family homes, including mine, as a matter of fact, that it might not be the best choice, but there are lots of parents out there who are not gay or lesbian who are raising children in less than ideal circumstances and, nonetheless, they do it.

And it doesn't seem to me that the folks who are lucky enough to have their life go exactly the way they wanted it doesn't seem that they seem harmed. How does it erode a heterosexual marriage if gays or lesbians marry? EASTMAN: Again, I don't think that's the right question. And you know, thank you for the yeoman's work, I'm sure, you're doing and all of the adoptive parents out there doing terrific work, but we designed the institution to try and further the best mechanism for raising the kids, and when that doesn't work out, you do everything you can to make the best of it, as you are doing and a lot of people are doing.

But the cultural institution itself was designed to try and channel that unique procreative ability of men and women into the most society to the beneficial way. And when you weaken that, and the whole point of David Boies' equality argument is this institution is no longer about that. It is simply about the relationships among adults. And I fully agree with them, if that's all the institution of marriage is supposed to serve, then it would be a violation of equal protection not to treat any adult relationship similarly.

But our equal protection analysis always requires that we treat people who are similarly situated similarly. And so, we ask the question, are homosexual --heterosexual relationships similarly situated with respect to at least that core purpose of marriage? And the answer to that is clearly they are not.

And so, under the law, can we have an institution designed around this unique ability of men and women to do something that other relationships just don't do?

CROWLEY: Right. Let me move you on to the road ahead. It is clear that those like David Boies who are committed to legalizing same-sex marriage across the country, that they will go state by state, perhaps, there'll be a case that takes a clearer issue to the Supreme Court. Where do you see the traditional marriage folks going in this case? Is this now a state-by-state battle? And how do you fight it? EASTMAN: Well, it is a state-by-state battle. And you know, I think he had one aspect of the state-by-state battle that is legitimate, which is to try to persuade people to make this change through their legislatures. And as we saw in North Carolina last year, that's a much more difficult task than they thought. But he had a threat behind that. And if the legislatures don't do that, we're going to have the courts impose this on them, whether the people want it or not.

And that's the troubling part. Earlier, you said there'd been 12 states that have voted to change the definition of marriage. Well, that's not true. Half of them have or less than half have. The others have had it imposed on them by the courts, and that's what's most deeply troubling here. This question is clearly not answered in the Supreme Court's or in the constitution of the United States.

And we are manufacturing a right to redefine marriage and impose it no matter whether the state or the country wants to have that redefinition. That's judicial tyranny. That's not the kind of system we have. But David Boies is threatening to do just that. And Judge Walker, in his opinion, did just that as well. CROWLEY: John Eastman, I want to thank you for your time this morning, especially since I know you are headed to an airport. I appreciate your coming in.

EASTMAN: Thank you very much.

CROWLEY: When we come back, it's now -- the House's move on immigration reform. Republican Bob Goodlatte and Democrat Luis Gutierrez on what we can expect next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CROWLEY: I'm joined by two members of the House Judiciary Committee, Congressman Bob Goodlatte, the Republican chairman from Virginia, and Congressman Luis Gutierrez, Democrat from Illinois. Thank you both.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Candy, good to be with you.

CROWLEY: Is immigration going to die in the House, immigration in its comprehensive form as sent to you by the Senate? Is it dead in the House?

GOODLATTE: I don't think so. We're taking a step-by-step approach to immigration reform, but we want to solve all three problems with immigration reform. We want to see legal immigration reform improved to grow a healthy economy, create more jobs for Americans. We want to see enforcement improved and actually enforced, and we want to find the appropriate legal status for people who are not here lawfully.

CROWLEY: But three separate pieces of legislation is tough, because -- I think, and I'm going to let you argue it here -- is that Democrats and many Republicans say you have to tie border security with a pathway to citizenship, or whatever one wants to call it, because otherwise it all falls apart. Can you deal with a separated series of bills that go toward reform?

GUTIERREZ: Here's what we can't do. We cannot put compromise to one side. We need an American solution. What the House Republicans are doing is giving a Republican solution. And a Republican solution isn't what we saw was successful in the Senate.

What happened in the Senate was that Republicans and Democrats decided that bipartisanship was going to lead to a solution, that compromising was going to lead to a solution. They understood that either you gave it an American solution or you were going to get no solution at all. And I think what's happening in the House of Representatives is that there isn't a conversation like the one and a dialogue like the one you saw in the Senate.

CROWLEY: But I thought you had a gang of eight in the House that's working toward a bill that you're supposed to have next week. Where's that?

GUTIERREZ: And it's working, and we had a wonderful meeting this past Friday. They have reiterated their support for a bipartisan --

CROWLEY: Right. There's Republicans on it, right?

GUTIERREZ: There are Republicans on it.

CROWLEY: But you're worried about?

GUTIERREZ: What we're worried about is that if what you propose is simply a partisan solution -- look, it's tough out there, the proposal in the Senate, but people worked together. They said to immigrants, 11 million of them, they said tell you what we're going to do. For 10 years, you pay every tax possible, but you don't get a single benefit. We're going to exclude you -- and Democrats accepted -- we're going to exclude you from Obamacare, we are going to -- as a matter of fact, we are going to confiscate every dollar you put --

CROWLEY: Let me just try to get to the --

GUTIERREZ: -- into the Social Security trust fund, but that is an agreement that we made because we want to reach a solution.

CROWLEY: Understood. I'm trying to get to where you differ with your chairman of your committee. And this is where this bill or these bills will come through. Is there something he's doing wrong that you're seeing in your smaller group with Republicans? I mean, what is the problem here?

GOODLATTE: Well, we would love to have a bipartisan group produce a bill, because it would help to inform the House, just like the Senate bill helped to inform the Senate. But 70 percent of the Republicans in the Senate voted against the immigration bill. Republicans are in the majority in the House. We want to work with Democrats. We want to work with Luis and others to do a bill, but not the Senate bill. And the compromise is going to have to come both in getting a bill out of the House and then in going to conference with the Senate to work out the differences. But the Senate bill gives legal status to 11 million people before it solves all the problems with securing the border, with e- verify, with an entry-exit visa system, and it says we'll take care of those later, but that's 1986. And in 1986, we gave an easy pathway to citizenship --

CROWLEY: We heard that during the Reagan years. Let me just try to pin you down on this. Is there any way that this House of Representatives is going to pass a bill that includes a pathway to legalization for undocumented workers? Is that ever going to happen?

GOODLATTE: When you used the word pathway to legalization as opposed to pathway to citizenship, I would say yes.

CROWLEY: But not to citizenship, you don't think that -- something that ends in U.S. citizenship?

GOODLATTE: Not a special pathway to citizenship, where people who are here unlawfully get something that people who have worked for decades to immigrate lawfully do not have.

GUTIERREZ: The proposals that we have seen in the House of Representatives are old proposals, they are discredited proposals. There were proposals in the past. We had an election on November 6, and they said no to self-deportation, they said no to fingerprints, picking winners and losers, and criminalization.

CROWLEY: But they kept Republicans in charge of the House.

GUTIERREZ: But let me just -- here is what we need to do. What we need do is to find an American solution. What you've seen in the Senate -- look, the Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO fight every day. They have reached a compromise. You have farm workers and the farmers themselves reaching a decision. You have our religious community, you have "The Wall Street Journal" and "The New York Times." The breadth and the depth of support which exists for comprehensive immigration reform is greater than I've seen on any other issue. Yet, the one people that stand on the side, unwilling to compromise and sit down with Democrats -- yes, the chairman has a solution, but it's not a bipartisan solution, so it's a solution that's going to lead us to nothing, to unresolved dilemmas and problems.

CROWLEY: So he says you're leading them to nothing.

GOODLATTE: Until Democrats in the House are willing to work with Republicans to produce a bill that can get a majority of House Republicans to support it and then go--

(CROSSTALK)

CROWLEY: That's a high (ph) mark, not just the majority of the House, but the majority of Republicans.

GOODLATTE: Absolutely. Well, that's what happened in the Senate, right? The Senate's controlled by Democrats, the Senate majority -- in fact, all of them -- voted for the bill they liked.

GUTIERREZ: But that's (ph) exactly what happened in the Senate.

GOODLATTE: And 70 percent of the Republicans didn't.

(CROSSTALK)

CROWLEY: Can I get a sense of what each of you thinks the speaker is headed for? Does he want something that will get to conference and you work it out there, which happens on quite a few bills sometimes?

GOODLATTE: I think the speaker wants to solve this problem. He wants to do it methodically, where we examine each of these issues separately, and we're doing that. And then he wants to find something that can pass the House. He says, and I agree with him, it would be best if it had the majority of both parties voting for it, and then we have to conference with the Senate, because there are lots of defects in the Senate bill that we don't like. CROWLEY: I know your caucus has met with the speaker. What is your sense of what he wants?

GUTIERREZ: (inaudible) meeting with the speaker of the House, the speaker of the House now has to decide whether or not he is going to allow the American people to speak. There are a majority of Democrats and Republicans that are ready to solve this problem. Will he allow a small group, maybe even a majority of his caucus, to control the debate and the future on this issue? If he decides to do that, we will then end in a stalemate and an impasse once again. That isn't what the American people sent us. That wasn't the decision they made on November 6th.

CROWLEY: I'm out of time, but it would be malpractice for me not to ask you about the Voting Rights Act, which many interpreted as, hey, it's up to Congress to figure out how states deal with changes in election law. Do you see any measures coming out of your Judiciary Committee that will deal with this?

GOODLATTE: First thing, it's important to understand that the Supreme Court's decision does not in any way take away the right of people to not be discriminated against in voting--

CROWLEY: But do you see a need for activity in your committee?

GOODLATTE: We will hold hearings on this next month. We will look at what the Supreme Court was talking about in terms of old data. We'll look at what new data is available, and we will make sure that people's freedom to vote in elections in this country is protected. But many would argue that--

When we return, a Texas state senator filibusters her way to stardom while challenging Governor Rick Perry. Our panel is next.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WENDY DAVIS, TEXAS STATE SENATOR: The true intention of these bills is to attack a basic human right, the right for any woman in this American society today.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CROWLEY: Joining me around the table, Matt Bai, political writer for "The New York Times" magazine, Corey Dade, he is a contributing editor for "The Root," George Allen, former Republican Governor and Senator from Virginia and Hilary Rosen, she's a CNN political contributor and Democratic strategist.

Wow, there's so much to go over.

So, I want to take the totality of the Supreme Court decisions and chime in on whichever one you most like. The one is the voting rights decision which says states can pretty much, you know, do their voting laws the way they want as opposed to having, some of them having to get permission from the Justice Department.

The second is, of course, the gay marriage decisions, both on federal benefits and on California and paving the way for same-sex marriage to start there.

Look next year and tell me how either of these affect turnout, campaigns and what they campaign on, because there was a time, really, I remember distinctly, where every time Ohio Republicans wanted to drive out the vote, it put same-sex marriage on the ballot. Does that work anymore? How does it change? Anybody? Jump ball.

GEORGE ALLEN, FRM. REPUBLICAN GOVERNOR OF VA: Well, I voted for the Voting Rights Act that was just struck down, when I was in the Senate. The Voting Rights Act decision does not mean that voting rights don't exist anymore. What congress will need to do is look at the section 4 criteria, because this is not 1965 or '66. And I don't see that decision having a big influence in the elections coming up because it's still illegal and should be illegal to discriminate on the basis of race insofar as elections are concerned.

So, that's something that will work its way through.

Virginia is under the Voting Rights Act. There are some jurisdictions that were out from under the preclearance requirement. In fact, last week, Hanover County in Virginia had that...

CROWLEY: But you know what the fear is. The fear is... ALLEN: I understand the fear. And the point is, is that the fear, regardless of that decision, the decision just said congress had to better define the section 4 on what the criteria formula is for preclearance. Any discrimination on the basis of race still can be challenged by individuals or the justice system.

CROWLEY: After the fact.

HILLARY ROSEN, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: After the fact. And that's really the critical issue, which is there are members of parties of both sides in congress who say we are going to try and go back at it, but we know how difficult it is to pass anything through congress today.

But the big issue, in six states just since the Voting Rights Act ruling have already started going back to those old lines, those old maps that they had that the court and the Justice Department had actually rejected, and started to put them back in again.

And so, the big issue for 2014 is, are there states where congressional districts and lines, legislative districts are going to get redrawn, and minorities and poor people are going to get...

CROWLEY: ...gerrymandering.

ROSEN: ....gerrymandered into selected districts? After all, every single state that is trying to change their lines are disadvantaging Democrats. It's all being led by Republicans. Why else would they do it other than to give a Republican advantage?

CROWLEY: ...gerrymander?

ROSEN: All of the changes are being done by Republicans, though.

ALLEN: Well, both parties I think do that.

ROSEN: No, no, they haven't.

ALLEN: Look, they butchered my district five different ways, put me in with Tom Bliley when I was in the congress, so...

ROSEN: We'll see what happens this time.

COREY DADE, THE ROOT: I think the difference is when the Democrats gerrymander, it's usually not a violation of the Voting Rights Act, that's the main distinction, whether it's proper or not.

ALLEN: I was just talking about redistricting.

DADE: I think the issue is, you know, with the Voting Rights Act now, I don't think it will necessarily have too big of an impact in 2014 in part because you don't have minorities voting as strongly in midterm elections as you will in 2016. The issue is, can this congress get that map redone, a formula done before 2016?

Now, here's the problem. If you try to get a new map done, that means you have to go to new jurisdictions in states where you've had that kind of discrimination or disenfranchisement. You're talking about places like Florida, like Ohio, where blacks and other minorities have been -- have had problems getting access to the polls for the last three election cycles. Does anyone realistically think a member of congress from Ohio or Florida, these two battleground states, are going to allow their state to be covered in preclearance? That's politically dangerous.

I don't know that that's going to happen.

CROWLEY: Matt, I want to move you on to the next subject, since you all sort of agree it has no effect in the next election, which is next year.

ALLEN: That's to be addressed.

CROWLEY: That needs to be addressed, everybody agrees that congress has got to do something.

So, we'll do this for that.

Matt, the Supreme Court kind of dual rulings on same-sex marriage. How does that play in to the -- I mean, all the House is up for election, a third of the Senate, governors, et cetera?

MATT BAI, NEW YORK TIMES MAGAZINE: As you say, it used to be -- I mean, the short answer is we don't know, because at this time in 2009 no one had ever the term Tea Party and the mid-terms were defined by it. So, you know, we're early in that cycle.

For the time being, as you said, this used to be a rallying issue for conservatives and I think this issue cuts for Democrats increasingly as we go forward because independents are with them, because it's a stand-in on the conservative side for sort of backward- looking party that isn't keeping up with historical trend.

But if I can for a second, Candy, just to look at it from a historic lens, because when they go back and look at this 50 years later, forgetting about the next midterm election, there are -- I mean -- and I don't know if Hilary will disagree with me or not on this, there are no national heroes on this issue. There is no Hubert Humphrey storming out of the Democratic convention in 1948 at his own political pearl over civil rights.

This is an issue where neither party led, where the people led, and the parties responded. And you know, and you have President Bill Clinton coming out saying I apologize for my leadership on holding this issue back.

So, from a political -- you know, from a partisan perspective right now, I think this issue cuts for Democrats going forward.

ROSEN: I think that's right, but I think it also means that it becomes more permanent and less political, which means that progress keeps marching forward. After all, you have a majority of evangelicals, white evangelicals between the ages of 18 and 34 who support marriage. The Republican Party can never go backwards on this issue. They can never start demonizing gay people again. They can never start using this issue as a rallying cry, because if it helps a small percentage of their base, it alienates too many more people who have gays and lesbians in their families.

And I think Matt is right, those stories are what have driven this issue so quickly. The stories of individual families.

CROWLEY: Pick up on what Hillary just said about the Republican Party not being able to back track on this.

ALLEN: I think what Hilary is saying is very true. This issue -- you listen and learn from people with different experiences, whether it's their families or your friends or others. That's part of learning as you live. The family is very important. Most people consider it the most important institution in our society and many of us have been raised in traditional families.

I think ultimately as this moves forward, for those who believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, think there should be a comparable treatment or equivalency in treatment economically as well as legally for those who want to have a gay marriage. And that's where I think some of the discussions and debates will go in the future. The states that have the gay marriage, the 13 states or so that have it, that is not going to be much of a debate there I wouldn't think. In the others, with the Supreme Court decision...

CROWLEY: But you know, when you start to talk about economic equality, the pushback always is wait a second, this is like separate but equal. That what the gay community is pushing for the gay and lesbian community is pushing for is equality in marriage. It's not the same thing to say you can have a civil union.

Do you see Virginia, let me ask this, do you see Virginia approving same-sex marriage any time in the future?

ALLEN; In the near future probably not because just a few years ago, I think 56, 57 percent of the Virginians in 2006 voted for a constitutional amendment defining marriage between one man and one woman. Now, the question is would Virginia in the years to come, come up with a comparable treatment or similar treatment for tax policy, for legal policy for people who want to be married or have a domestic partnership.

So that's -- I'm just -- I think it's some -- I can't predict 50 years from now. But I'm just -- you're talking about 2014 with the makeup of the state legislature and how you would have to amend the constitution...

ROSEN: One-third of the country right now can be married legally. One-third of the country. You can't have that number and not have it be a tipping point for the rest of the country.

ALLEN: ...people move from other states.

DADE: I don't think this is going to be a legislative solution in Virginia and many other states. I think the DOMA ruling sets the stage -- it's a strongly worded opinion -- it sets the stage for a national legalization or recognition of same-sex marriage from state to state, because that equal protections clause is going to be the thing that proponents of same-sex marriage are going to use in this next case that gets to the court eventually.

CROWLEY: I don't have much time left here and I have to bring up the brouhaha in Texas where we saw a Democratic female take to the floor in the Texas legislature to hold off for the moment what she viewed and many viewed as an attempt to undo abortion law in Texas.

We saw her get into a back-and-forth with Governor Perry. I was reading this and what is this story about?

BAI: I'll tell you what I think it's about, isn't this a cool moment we live in where a legislator in a state, right? This is not -- can get up, an unknown legislator in a state can get up and become this national viral sensation.

This is not the little girl dropped down the well or the movie star running from the paparazzi, this is a legislator making a policy speech who no one has ever heard of on an issue that affects people only in one state and it becomes this huge national thing because this is the connectedness, regardless of geographic boarders, this is the energy that social media provides politics in its best and in its worst moments. And it's just a really cool thing that, you know, five years ago couldn't happen.

Does it have any political impact in Texas lasting beyond the moment? Probably not.

ROSEN: It's a rallying cry, though, because state legislatures across the country are now trying to roll back choice rights. And so that's as much why it became a national rallying cry. That's why you saw the halls of the Texas legislature filled with supporters.

CROWLEY: Last word here, governor.

ALLEN: And the point is for some of us, we believe the people in the states ought to be the ones deciding the parameters on abortion. Senator Evans may become the Scott Walker for the pro-choice folks in the country and everyone rallying as conservatives -- but that's where the debates ought to be on this. The state legislatures are more interesting sometimes than congress.

CROWLEY: ...Allen, Hilary Rosen, Corey Dade, Matt Bai, thank you all.

When we return, tensions mount in Cairo, Egypt, as thousands of protesters against President Morsi descend on Tahrir Square.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CROWLEY: There are ongoing massive anti-government protests in Egypt today. We want to bring in CNN's Ben Wedeman, he is in Cairo in Tahrir Square. Ben, how big a threat are these demonstrations to the Morsi government?

BEN WEDEMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, certainly if you look at the numbers, and the numbers are only growing, they're getting louder and more insistent in calling for President Morsi to resign. And it will be very hard for him to be deaf to these calls. He is, we just learned a little while ago, the president will be holding a press conference in about one hour's time. We don't know the content of what he's going to talk about, but clearly his eye will be on these demonstrators.

He has millions of supporters, there's no denying that. They have been equally vocal. but certainly the rising calls in the street have put a lot of pressure on him. He's worried about the loyalty of the army. He's worried about the loyalty of the police in this current crisis.

So we should watch that press conference very closely, Candy.

CROWLEY: I know you'll be doing that, Ben. And we will be back to you throughout the day. Thank you.

And thank you all for watching State of the Union. I'm Candy Crowley in Washington.

Join us again next Sunday when our guest is the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, General Martin Dempsey.

If you missed any part of today's show, find us on iTunes. You just search State of the Union.

"Fareed Zakaria GPS" is next with Tom Donilon's final interview as NSA director.